Extended full-power in small pistons

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic wrote:
John Smith writes:

The old argument. Interesting, though, that modern car engines are much
more reliable than older (simpler) ones.

That reliability doesn't come from the computers, it comes from improved
mechanical engineering and manufacturing.

As a sort of followup to my other post, for anyone still wondering why
everyone hates MX so much, this post is a perfect example. Notice how he:

- Snipped out what John was replying to, making the discussion vastly more
difficult to follow.

- Is combative and argumentative for absolutely no reason.

- Argues against something John did not actually say, but due to the
aforementioned snipping makes it look like John did say it. In this way he
makes himself look like a good guy and makes anyone he responds to look
like the bad guy, but only by completely twisting the other guy's words.

- And, the icing on the cake, after all that crappiness, he is still
wrong.

I've been posting on Usenet and other internet forums for a decade and a
half and in all those years I have *never* seen a troll as masterful, as
clever, or as infuriating as MX. As I said before, the reaction he gets in
here is absolutely justified.

(And yes, I do respond to him from time to time. But only when he's having
a rare reasonable moment, or when he's said something that's really
hilariously dumb.)

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

This has always been his modus, yet even by his own admissions he is ugly
and a social outcast who can not find a meaningful job on either of two
continents. (go figure). Yet, he will never admit he is ever wrong, and is
the master of the half truth. Who in the world would ever want to work with
such a dork, let alone socialize with him?

At least he supplies comic relief. Never take anything he says as remotely
being true or sincere- it is all only his pathologic attempt at getting the
social attention he lacks in his real life. He is simply an internet
whack-a-mole.

Michael Ash writes:

I've been posting on Usenet and other internet forums for a decade and a
half and in all those years I have *never* seen a troll as masterful, as
clever, or as infuriating as MX.

That's because I'm not a troll.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

That's because I'm not a troll.

And you've never had a blog either.

Both are false statements.

wouldn't it be great if you all would save your breath in answering this
idiot?

Not really, he's a great source of amusement.

Viperdoc schrieb:
wouldn't it be great if you all would save your breath in answering this
idiot?

Not really, he's a great source of amusement.

then move on and take him with you to the appropriate group.

What group would you suggest, since this one no longer involves flying?

Viperdoc wrote:
What group would you suggest, since this one no longer involves flying?


any alt.* group that welcomes trolls and the, er, posters,
that encourage them, just as long as it's not a
rec.aviation. group.

On Jan 4, 6:25Â*am, Martin Hotze wrote:
Beauciphus schrieb:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
.. .

That's because I'm not a troll.

And you've never had a blog either.

Both are false statements.

wouldn't it be great if you all would save your breath in answering this
idiot?

Mx is famous for his assumptive knowledge. The definition of
assumption follows:


as·sump·tion [ ə súmpshən ] (plural as·sump·tions)

noun
Definition:

1. something taken for granted: something that is believed to be true
without proof

2. belief without proof: the belief that something is true without
having any proof

3. act of undertaking something: the act of taking something upon
yourself

4. acceptance of responsibility for something: the act of taking over
responsibility for something

5. inclination to high expectations: the tendency to expect too much

6. logic unproved starting point: something taken as a starting point
of a logical proof rather than given as a premise

[13th century. Latin assumption- assumpt-, past participle of
assumere (see assume)]

Consider points 1, 2, and 6. Mx assumes he knows everything
already and is therefore unteachable. There's no refuting him, so
there's no point arguing. He's either just trolling for reactions, or
has a complex of some sort. Why do we bother?

Dan